STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TAMBERLANE DAVID MOODY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appealed the suppression of evidence in a grand theft case, arguing that a police officer's detention of Moody based on suspicion that an unpackaged camcorder was stolen was justified. The court affirmed the suppression, holding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Moody, as merely carrying an unpackaged item in a parking lot does not justify a seizure.
The court affirmed the suppression of evidence, holding that the detention was improper because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion. Merely carrying an unpackaged camcorder or other item in a parking lot, even if unusual, does not justify a seizure or detention.
[1] An appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence is generally not immediately appealable, but an appeal from an order specifically suppressing evidence is.
[2] A police officer's suspicion that an individual is carrying stolen property, based solely on the item being unpackaged and the individual walking aimlessly in a parking l…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[T]he officers had only a "hunch" (although a good one as it turned out), that is, a "bare" or "unfounded" suspicion that something was wrong, which is clearly not sufficient to validate a stop and detention.”
Establishes the legal standard that a mere hunch or unfounded suspicion is insufficient to justify a detention
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Antoszewski observed Moody walking through a mall parking lot carrying an unpackaged VCR camcorder mounted on a tripod with no price tags, tho…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
This matter was originally dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was an appeal from an order granting a motion rather than from an order specifically suppressing evidence. See Rule 9.140(c)(1)(B), Rules of Appellate Procedure. However, on the authority of State v. Saufley, 574 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), we reinstate the appeal and grant rehearing, determine that we have jurisdiction and proceed on the merits.
Officer Antoszewski of the Altamonte Springs Police Department, while on “mall patrol,” observed Tamberlane Moody walking aimlessly through the parking lot with an unpackaged VCR camcorder mounted to a tripod over his shoulder. There were no price tags attached to the camcorder, but Officer Antoszewski did see plastic on the legs of the tripods. Although the officer had not been advised that a camcorder had been stolen, he was suspicious because of the lack of packaging. He confronted Moody, directed him to place the camcorder on the trunk of the police vehicle, and demanded identification. A computer check revealed that Moody was wanted on a felony charge.
Moody was arrested on the felony warrant and, after it was confirmed that the camcorder was in fact stolen, charged with grand theft. The trial judge determined that Moody’s detention was not based on reasonable suspicion and suppressed the evidence. We agree that this was a detention and not merely a street encounter and further agree that it was improper. As stated in Romanello v. State, 365 So. 2d 220, 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978):
[T]he officers had only a “hunch” (although a good one as it turned out), that is, a “bare” or “unfounded” suspicion that something was wrong, which is clearly not sufficient to validate a stop and detention.
Perhaps carrying an unpackaged camcorder over one’s shoulder in a parking lot is unusual. But the mere carrying of an unpackaged purchase (perhaps after buying a floor sample or verifying the contents of a previously packaged purchase) while wandering through a parking lot trying to remember where the car is parked does not justify even a brief seizure.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Scott, 641 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)….M. with cardboard box on handlebars provides basis for founded suspicion of criminal activity). The fact that the equipment was not packaged was not unusual where persons may be moving their possessions from storm-damaged homes. See State v. Moody, 578 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (carrying an un-packaged VCR through a mall parking lot does not justify investigatory stop). “The ruling of the trial court on a motion to suppress, when it comes to the reviewing court, is clothed with the presumption of corre…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Saufley, 574 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Romanello v. State, 365 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)